The timeline has no bearing on a shared universe. A franchise can and often does contradict individual stories. Retroactive continuity is common. Now that Disney had control of Star Wars, much of the expanded universe contradicts what happened during the Lucas era, but it's all still Star Wars. "Do you want to know how I got these scars?" comes with a different story from The Joker every time, but it's still Joker's world.

Harry PotterThis one is more difficult to call a franchise, so call this my cheat entry. There were a few years when, at Christmas, you knew you could expect a new Harry Potter movie to come out, and the furore was insane. Harry Potter was tradition for a little while.

Does that mean you will ignore the Fantastic Beasts films that come from the same universe and share characters, much like the non-existent Crystal Skull?

My god, the hair-splitting is this thread is maddening. Can't we just say a franchise is any set of two or more movies that occupy the same fictional universe? Isn't the whole point of saying "what are the top franchises" just another way of asking "what fictional worlds do you like to visit"? What difference does it make how many there are or whether more movies are planned or not or if it's a remake?

I, for one am enjoying the discussion and am happy to keep it up for as long as I can. As to your first question, this all derailed because I say a franchise requires a minimum of 4 films. It is an increasingly minority opinion, but I think I've done a good job stating my reasons and now am just engaging in the finer points. If it's one thing I've learned, there are no rules when it comes to movies, which means I know there must be contradictions to my 4 Film Rule. So far though (I hope) I haven't crossed over into becoming an obstinate pest.

1) I will address your first two quotes-replies at the same time because they're about the same issue. When I say universe, I am talking about a continuity, which I am using here as a synonym to timeline. Take the two as yet aired Spiderman series. They're not part of the same universe where my rules are concerned. They may be two separate franchises - whether or not they are is besides the point I am making - but what happens in one does not impact the other. How can they both belong to the same universe when they offer contradictory versions of the same characters, arcs, etc.?

Retconning is a different issue. Retconning is a way of maintaining continuity whilst altering some element for whatever reason. Much as I hate it when it happens, it does not a franchise unmake, at least semantically. Qualitatively is another matter.

When a franchises contradicts continuity, not in a retconning way but rather in an overlooking what happened before way, that's just sloppy writing and poor supervision. I am still mad about AoU not recognising the changes extremis allowed Start in IM 3, such as getting rid of the arc reactor. Although, considering how well the entire movie ties in with the franchise, it is probably Shane Black's fault more than anyone's.

2) The expanded universes issue. This happens not only with Star Wars but with some other universes too, the MCU included. There are two types of it. There are expanded universes that are officially connected to the movies - take the Star Wars comic books released just before Star Wars VII to fill in some blanks. Then there are the EU where some creative types took the universe and went with it but in a less official capacity, ie, the rest of the SW EU. There have been lots of SW fiction contradicting each other in the past because there was no cannon because most of it was not movie-level legitimate.

I have trouble including non-movie stuff in the franchises, but if I am going to, I want a statement from the creators clearly saying that all the pieces tie into each other.

3) Fantastic Beasts is very much part of the Potterverse as of last year, I am unsure what part of what I wrote suggested otherwise to you. Some of the magic is gone, but the movies are 100% in the universe. And I don't know what that movie you mentioned is.

How can they both belong to the same universe when they offer contradictory versions of the same characters, arcs, etc.?

Same franchise, alternate realities. Sam Raimi's Spiderman trilogy is part of the same Sony franchise that released the two starring Andrew Garfield. Spiderman gets interesting now because he is still head of his own franchise (like Wolverine), but is being temporarily folded into the MCU. Even his appearance in Civil War felt like a guest star out on loan.

When a franchises contradicts continuity, not in a retconning way but rather in an overlooking what happened before way, that's just sloppy writing and poor supervision.

It can be. The Spiderman franchise has now had two origin features, displaying a different tone to go with the new casting. Even with Christopher Nolan's involvement, Ben Affleck's Batman is not a continuation of Christian Bale's Batman. However, they are both part of the Batman Franchise, as are the versions by Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher, both of which have used villains that were later reused by Nolan. Batman is not a series of trilogies and one-offs. Much like Bond, people keep turning up to see their beloved Batman in all his forms. That's what makes Batman a franchise.

I have trouble including non-movie stuff in the franchises, but if I am going to, I want a statement from the creators clearly saying that all the pieces tie into each other.

Me too. I have a friend who has followed all the branches of the Star Wars Expanded Universe. Kathleen Kennedy clearly stated that starting with The Force Awakens, the only stories you can carry into this new era are the other two film trilogies. All other Expanded Universe stories will not necessarily fit into this new world they are building.

3) Fantastic Beasts is very much part of the Potterverse as of last year, I am unsure what part of what I wrote suggested otherwise to you. Some of the magic is gone, but the movies are 100% in the universe.

You called it "Harry Potter" and everything you wrote leaned towards just those films, to the exclusion of Fantastic Beasts.